DOI Artikel:
Kachurin, Pamela Jill: Purchasing power: the state as art patron in early Soviet Russia
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48915#0174
169
1 The author would like to thank Professor Janet Kennedy, Paul Mitchinson, Lauren Hewes and Rochelle Ruthchild for
their suggestions during the preparation of this article.
2 A. V. LUNACHARSKY, “Postanovlenie NKP ob obespechenii khudozhnikov masterskami,” Izvestiya VTsIK, 21
September, 1918, p. 1.
PAMELA JILL KACHURIN
North Indiana University, Bloomington, Indian
Purchasing Power: The State as Art Patron
in Early Soviet Russia
Within a year of the Bolsheviks’ abrupt seizure of power in October 1917, an
equally abrupt turnaround occurred in the world of Russian art.1 The avant-
garde artists, or so-called ‘Futurists,’ who before the Revolution had been
content to remain on the margins of the Russian art world and art market, thrust them
selves into the center of artistic life in the new Soviet Russia. They were appointed heads
of art departments, committees and art schools within the Department of Fine Art (IZO)
under the People’s Commissariat of Enlightenment {Narkompros), administered
by Anatoli Lunacharsky. Few Futurists who worked within IZO sympathized with the
political aspirations of the Bolsheviks, although a smali number undoubtedly did; and
State apparatchiki did not possess an affinity for the Futurists and their brand of modemist,
mostly non-objective art. Rather, it is elear that the relationship between the Futurists and
the newly formed Soviet State was based on mutual need and, occasionally, greed.
The State was in need of qualified artists willing to teach in the recently-reformed State
Art Studios, and to execute State commissions of monumental sculpture and other
propaganda. Many academically-trained artists refused altogether to cooperate with the
Bolsheviks, and morę established artists such as Alexander Benois and Igor Grabar were
employed in the Department of Preservation. Thus the State by default had to rely on the
artists who chose to work within the Department of Fine Arts, namely, the Futurists.
The Futurists, in common with artists of other trends, were attracted to work for the State
by the promise of steady employment, regular salaries, and Lunacharsky’s guarantee of
not only an apartment but a separate studio in which to work.2
The early period of cooperation, from 1918 to the mid-1920s, between the Futurists and
the Soviet State has often been construed as a time of relative artistic freedom, in which
the fuli rangę of groups and trends co-existed and received equal financial and ideological
support from the State. Indeed, much evidence suggests that in this formative period,
the State actively supported Futurism practically to the exclusion of all other trends and
artists. Futurism, especially between 1918 and 1920, became highly visible, with Futurists
1 The author would like to thank Professor Janet Kennedy, Paul Mitchinson, Lauren Hewes and Rochelle Ruthchild for
their suggestions during the preparation of this article.
2 A. V. LUNACHARSKY, “Postanovlenie NKP ob obespechenii khudozhnikov masterskami,” Izvestiya VTsIK, 21
September, 1918, p. 1.
PAMELA JILL KACHURIN
North Indiana University, Bloomington, Indian
Purchasing Power: The State as Art Patron
in Early Soviet Russia
Within a year of the Bolsheviks’ abrupt seizure of power in October 1917, an
equally abrupt turnaround occurred in the world of Russian art.1 The avant-
garde artists, or so-called ‘Futurists,’ who before the Revolution had been
content to remain on the margins of the Russian art world and art market, thrust them
selves into the center of artistic life in the new Soviet Russia. They were appointed heads
of art departments, committees and art schools within the Department of Fine Art (IZO)
under the People’s Commissariat of Enlightenment {Narkompros), administered
by Anatoli Lunacharsky. Few Futurists who worked within IZO sympathized with the
political aspirations of the Bolsheviks, although a smali number undoubtedly did; and
State apparatchiki did not possess an affinity for the Futurists and their brand of modemist,
mostly non-objective art. Rather, it is elear that the relationship between the Futurists and
the newly formed Soviet State was based on mutual need and, occasionally, greed.
The State was in need of qualified artists willing to teach in the recently-reformed State
Art Studios, and to execute State commissions of monumental sculpture and other
propaganda. Many academically-trained artists refused altogether to cooperate with the
Bolsheviks, and morę established artists such as Alexander Benois and Igor Grabar were
employed in the Department of Preservation. Thus the State by default had to rely on the
artists who chose to work within the Department of Fine Arts, namely, the Futurists.
The Futurists, in common with artists of other trends, were attracted to work for the State
by the promise of steady employment, regular salaries, and Lunacharsky’s guarantee of
not only an apartment but a separate studio in which to work.2
The early period of cooperation, from 1918 to the mid-1920s, between the Futurists and
the Soviet State has often been construed as a time of relative artistic freedom, in which
the fuli rangę of groups and trends co-existed and received equal financial and ideological
support from the State. Indeed, much evidence suggests that in this formative period,
the State actively supported Futurism practically to the exclusion of all other trends and
artists. Futurism, especially between 1918 and 1920, became highly visible, with Futurists